SteltekMaster from Spacebattles wrote:Christian fundamentalism has really been given a bad name by radical bigots outside Christianity and radical heretics within it over the years, who alike try to label hate and bigotry as legitimate Christian thought, and thus display Christianity in a bad light. But in point of fact, Christianity is essentially composed of the following precepts, which are literally the fundamentals of Christianity:
We believe in one God, the Father All-sovereign, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, and the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all the ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and comes again with glory to judge living and dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end:
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and Son is worshipped together and glorified together, who spoke through the prophets:
In one holy catholic and apostolic church:
We acknowledge one baptism unto remission of sins. We look for a resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.
This, the Nicean creed of 325 A.D., contains nothing about Genesis being literal or not, the Earth being the center of the universe or not, or God "hating fags" or not. Something to think about.
A response to the post:
Very true. That right there is as close to the heard and soul of Christianity as you can get...aside from the teachings of Christ.
Discuss.
Disclaimer: SteltekMaster is the "moralist" of SB. Just FYI.
Last edited by Shinova on 2003-01-22 10:01pm, edited 2 times in total.
I don't know. The only time I can rember it is the one time you have to say it and its kinda become an invoulentary action. Also I never sayed I don't believe it.
But you don't HAVE to say it. It's not some pledge that you must recite or else the Spanish Inquisition will haul you away. It's just a statement of faith, and I think it loses something if it's said merely as an involuntary reaction.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
That post is precisely the problem; they do not speak matter-of-factly, using plain English, but rather, in florid praise-speak. When providing a DEFINITION, you do not spew rhetoric; you are supposed to give a clean, concise description.
Fundies believe the Bible is literally true.
Done; there's a concise definition. What they spewed above is just a lot of hot air.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
HemlockGrey wrote:Er, Wong, the Creed is supposed to be sort of poetic. It IS rhetoric- it's not trying to prove a point, just stating what one believes in.
Then it is not a definition; it is a creed. And this would mean that the thread's title is incorrect.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
HemlockGrey wrote:Er, Wong, the Creed is supposed to be sort of poetic. It IS rhetoric- it's not trying to prove a point, just stating what one believes in.
Except the post is trying to define something, therefore it shouldn't be using something really flowery.
HemlockGrey wrote:Er, Wong, the Creed is supposed to be sort of poetic. It IS rhetoric- it's not trying to prove a point, just stating what one believes in.
Except the post is trying to define something, therefore it shouldn't be using something really flowery.
Yeah, but it was written in the third century CE, and probably translated to English during the Middle English period. All of Middle English seems flowery to us.
Also, it would be better stated that these are the basic beliefs of Christianity, to avoid any confusion about the difference between fundamentals and fundamentalism. While the difference should be obvious to anyone with epistemological training, quite a few people could get confused by the wording.
Stanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
OK, well it's very cute to take something written in 325 AD and say that it represents the definition of Christianity, but there's this little book called "The Bible" which is considered somewhat more authoritative on what the tenets of this religion happen to be, and it does contain a lot of that nasty, bigoted stuff that this "Steltek" person claims is the invention of Christianity-haters.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
hm. my fam beleives in bible total truth, and call themselves fundamental christians.
could explains the arguments lately.
This day is Fantastic!
Myers Briggs: ENTJ
Political Compass: -3/-6 DOOMerWoW
"I really hate it when the guy you were pegging as Mr. Worst Case starts saying, "Oh, I was wrong, it's going to be much worse." " - Adrian Laguna
If that creed is what "true christianity" is supposed to be, then why aren't all the christians in the world Catholic, as dictated by the creed? does it not say "In one holy catholic and apostolic church"? All non-catholics are heathens?
"everytime a person is born the Earth weighs just a little more."--DMJ on StarTrek.com
"You see now you are using your thinking and that is not a good thing!" DMJay on StarTrek.com
"Watching Sarli argue with Vympel, Stas, Schatten and the others is as bizarre as the idea of the 40-year-old Virgin telling Hugh Hefner that Hef knows nothing about pussy, and that he is the expert."--Elfdart
the catholics are silly =p all the normal protestants types left them behind, and maintain a spiritual, not religious, communion with god.
This day is Fantastic!
Myers Briggs: ENTJ
Political Compass: -3/-6 DOOMerWoW
"I really hate it when the guy you were pegging as Mr. Worst Case starts saying, "Oh, I was wrong, it's going to be much worse." " - Adrian Laguna
Besides, it says holy catholic church. In the opinion of the Protestants, the Catholic church is no longer the same church it once was, and is no longer the HCC, but the RCC. The holy catholic church had no papal authority (the Pope is really just the Bishop of Rome), and was very liberal in its social views in its early days.
Stanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
It is not flowery or poetic. The particular translation may have tried to make it sound nice, but every word used has a specific and definite meaning. The only phrase that might be poetic is "Light from Light." Everything else is concise and precise. Much effort went into making it as clear and simple a definition of religion as possible. As an example, the form recited daily in the Roman church has two extra words: "...proceeds from the Father and the Son [Filioque]. There has been great anger and even bloodshed over those two words. Every word has important meaning.
I would suggest that a religion is kept in the hearts of its practitioners. Christianity is defined by Christians, not by the Bible. If they choose to ignore parts of the Bible, then so be it. Early Christians had a much easier time composing the Credo than they did deciding what was to be included in the Bible. A great many Christians are peaceful and compassionate people who believe in a loving, forgiving God. It may be irrational for them to believe such when their sacred texts at times describe God as cruel and hateful, but if your going to go after them for being irrational, start with the fact that they believe in a God at all.
Also, according to many Christian theologians, probably most, a man is not defined as Christian based on his position on the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, but rather on his acceptance of a few key doctrines which happen to be summed up quite well in the Credo. Therefore, the ideas contained in the Credo might be more authoritative than the Bible. Except, of course, to fundamentalists. It seems to me there are about three different types of Christianity, which might well be considered different religions, just as Buddhism is not considered a Hindu cult. Maybe someday they will agree on what to call each other.
Catholic is just a Greek adjective menaing universal. It should be read, "one holy, universal, and apostolic church." For whatever reasons, "catholic" evolved into another name for Christianity, and even protestants have kept the word in their translations.
Personally, I find the study of reality, in it's objective/subjective form, to be fascinating.
With the people that I usually associate with, religion and/or science is viewed as a way of defining reality. However, I feel that both can also be used as a method to control "the masses", and although it is debatable whether or not controlling the masses is necessary, I feel that it is vitally important to strive for a further understanding of reality. Be that in a meta-physical sense, a spiritual sense, or a practical scientific sense.
SteltekMaster from Spacebattles wrote:Christian fundamentalism has really been given a bad name by radical bigots outside Christianity and radical heretics within it over the years, who alike try to label hate and bigotry as legitimate Christian thought, and thus display Christianity in a bad light. But in point of fact, Christianity is essentially composed of the following precepts, which are literally the fundamentals of Christianity:
We believe in one God, the Father All-sovereign, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, and the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all the ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and comes again with glory to judge living and dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end:
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and Son is worshipped together and glorified together, who spoke through the prophets:
In one holy catholic and apostolic church:
We acknowledge one baptism unto remission of sins. We look for a resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.
This, the Nicean creed of 325 A.D., contains nothing about Genesis being literal or not, the Earth being the center of the universe or not, or God "hating fags" or not. Something to think about.
A response to the post:
Very true. That right there is as close to the heard and soul of Christianity as you can get...aside from the teachings of Christ.
Discuss.
Disclaimer: SteltekMaster is the "moralist" of SB. Just FYI.
The Council of Nicea was an attemp to heal the rifts that were beginning to grow between the Eastern and Western and other sectarian Christian groups, while the split into the Orthodox and Catholic Churches would not happen for several centuries, the nascent Christian heiararchys in Rome and Constantinople were attempting to clamp down on Christian sects and independent monastic orders that were coming up with some rather interesting versions of the holy gospel. Especially troubling were the hermetic movements common in Egypt and Asia Minor which advocated no heirarchy and heirocracy for the Christian religion, which of course would have put the Priests and Bishops and the Pope out of a job.......Nicea is a Christian panacea, designed to give a creedo that everyone could agree to , rather than a definitive 'truth' of Christianiaty. Over the next thousand years a series of Papal and Patriarchal Councils were held in order to hammer out doctrine, points of theology(Jesus's duality, Icons ect...), and to insure the supremacy of the Roman Catholic and later Byzantine versions of the Church.
It would help if these asshats would read a little HISTORY, before attmempting to use this political drivel to further their own ends....
